Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

A total non-sequitur to anything I posted; however those "girls" were always boys; they simply lacked an enzyme in the womb. When puberty hits, their maleness becomes more apparent. It may be possible that transgendered people have similar enzyme/hormone issues. With better science will come better understanding. However, it's still disordered development.

So then we have "A woman would then be any adult human who exhibits the gender attributes (especially gender identity) traditionally associated with the sex that produces egg cells"

If you like? I think it might be easier if you just accepted a correction every now and then.

Quote:

To me, I don't see any difference between that and "A woman is someone who has gender attributes of a woman".

I do. The second sense is different from the first, and that renders the definition non-circular.

If you prefer, a woman is:

1. an adult human female
2. someone who has the gender attributes of a woman1.

There's nothing circular about that second sense. It just has a dependency on the (different) first sense, kind of like how our definition of woman1 depends on the definition of female, and especially in understanding that it isn't synonymous with woman.

Quote:

Apparently, that particular attribute isn't all that significant.

It is significant--it's how we determine which sex is female. It just isn't a gender attribute. Recall that gender is concerned with social, cultural, and psychological differences.

Quote:

It didn't use to be fuzzy and indistinct, and I'm not confident that its current fuzziness is a sign of progress.

It's always been fuzzy and indistinct. That's the reality--biology is complex, and we're trying to reduce extreme complexity down to a category with two members. We're fond of saying things like "life beings at the point of conception", but in reality there is no point of conception. There's a fuzz of conception.

Taking that on board does constitute progress, because its allows us to deal with the world as it actually is, and develop our simplifying assumptions in light of that, rather than just projecting received beliefs onto the world. Which is why there's a great deal of irony in all the people yammering on about "objective reality."

There's nothing circular about that second sense. It just has a dependency on the (different) first sense, kind of like how our definition of woman1 depends on the definition of female, and especially in understanding that it isn't synonymous with woman.

We seem to be getting somewhere. So would you say that the transgender "man" who gave birth is a man, but not a male? That is to say, he's a man in terms of gender, but his sex is female?

Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".

Part of what makes the matter fuzzy. We've become less rigid in what constitutes "typically associated". When describing typical female behavior, cultural, and psychological traits, what even are those? Women can fall along a pretty wide spectrum in all these areas.

They may be typically more nurturing, wear their hair in longer or softer styles, dress in certain clothing, be less aggressive in career pursuits, etc., but any given woman is likely to have these traits to a greater or lesser extent or not at all. And many possess traits "typically associated" with males. I know "girly-girl" women and "mannish" women, and every type in between. The same with men - macho? effeminate? what defines typical?

If we can't determine or assign a "gender" based solely on how many of these traits one does or does not possess, then it becomes up to the individual to tell us how they want to be seen and to live their lives in society (what difference would it make to a hermit, after all?)

For most of us, it's not something we have to worry about. We got parts, we go with it and fall somewhere along our respective male or female spectrum. For others, apparently the disconnect between the parts and the traits is so large that they feel compelled to switch teams, as it were.

__________________DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.Polaris (wrt cluelessforum) - Bunch of sewer-chewing douche nozzles.

We seem to be getting somewhere. So would you say that the transgender "man" who gave birth is a man, but not a male? That is to say, his gender is male, but his sex is female?

I think that's where we've always been. That's what it means to be transgendered--that your gender identity doesn't match your birth sex. The only thing this guy needed to do to get pregnant was stop hormone therapy.

No one has said that. It is this simple. A man cannot have a baby. To have a baby you need the female sex organs. Men do not have female sex organs. That is not saying that a woman who has had something like a hysterectomy or whatever is not a woman.

Now, I understand there are some people who feel like they have the wrong parts. I hope they live their life in whatever way makes them feel complete. If this person wants to call themselves a man they are free to do so. We are all free to call ourselves whatever we want.

To pretend that this is a case of a man having a baby is utter nonsense. This is simply a case of someone who wants to be, but is not currently, a man. I mean not biologically a man.

No one has said that. It is this simple. A man cannot have a baby. To have a baby you need the female sex organs. Men do not have female sex organs. That is not saying that a woman who is had some thing like a hysterectomy or whatever is not a woman.

And for example you can't judge by appearance because you have androgen insensitive males who look like women. That is why you need detailed medical information to class someone as male or female. And even then it can be tricky.

I think that's where we've always been. That's what it means to be transgendered--that your gender identity doesn't match your birth sex. The only thing this guy needed to do to get pregnant was stop hormone therapy.

So we have a person who is a man (gender is masculine), but not a male (because his sex is female). Great. Good terms.

Take down all the locker room signs that say "men" and replace them with ones that say "male", and it works for me.

And for example you can't judge by appearance because you have androgen insensitive males who look like women. That is why you need detailed medical information to class someone as male or female. And even then it can be tricky.

Not simple. This is a logical fallacy (someone help me, I've forgotten the term).

All persons who can give birth are female.
This person cannot give birth.
___________________________________
Therefore: this person is not female.

This is a fallacy, because the statement "All persons who can give birth are female" does not exclude persons who cannot give birth, but simply includes in the term a certain group which is potentially a subset of all those who are female.

__________________DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.Polaris (wrt cluelessforum) - Bunch of sewer-chewing douche nozzles.

Not simple. This is a logical fallacy (someone help me, I've forgotten the term).

All persons who can give birth are female.
This person cannot give birth.
___________________________________
Therefore: this person is not female.

This is a fallacy, because the statement "All persons who can give birth are female" does not exclude persons who cannot give birth, but simply includes in the term a certain group which is potentially a subset of all those who are female.

As it's about not giving birth, I think it must be a fallacy of the undistributed middle.

__________________"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen

biologically xx is female and xy is male,
there are exceptions and they tend to have been recognised and labelled already.

If you wake up and feel like changing whether your a girl/boy which you identify with but you're not in the exception group, then I feel you are being lead by whats the cool and fashionable thing to do that makes you feel special.

biologically xx is female and xy is male,
there are exceptions and they tend to have been recognised and labelled already.

If you wake up and feel like changing whether your a girl/boy which you identify with but you're not in the exception group, then I feel you are being lead by whats the cool and fashionable thing to do that makes you feel special.

A horrible car accident happens. In a groundbreaking amazing surgical breakthrough, one person survives by having his brain transplanted into another body! The body is that of a woman, though.

A horrible car accident happens. In a groundbreaking amazing surgical breakthrough, one person survives by having his brain transplanted into another body! The body is that of a woman, though.

Is he or she a man or a woman now?

I mentioned that already

Originally Posted by p0lka

there are exceptions and they tend to have been recognised and labelled already.

your example would come under the above in the sense that its biological thing, ie physical.
If you have none of the above then you're just following a trend that you find compelling and you're just trying to feel special.

Not simple. This is a logical fallacy (someone help me, I've forgotten the term).

All persons who can give birth are female.
This person cannot give birth.
___________________________________
Therefore: this person is not female.

This is a fallacy, because the statement "All persons who can give birth are female" does not exclude persons who cannot give birth, but simply includes in the term a certain group which is potentially a subset of all those who are female.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you have managed to do a fantastic job of illustrating the fallacy of the straw man. That term is thrown around here with reckless abandon, but this is an actual case. PonderingTurtle has substituted a phony argument for a real one, and you have demonstrated the flaw with the phony one. That's exactly how the straw man fallacy is supposed to work. To demonstrate the fallacy with an argument about logical fallacies is quite cool.

There is one aspect of the straw man fallacy that I am not sure this fits, though. The straw man is supposed to be a deliberate construction. I'm not sure ponderingturtle understands the original argument adequately to deliberately construct the substitute. I'm not sure there's such a thing as an "accidental" straw man.

You know, ponderingturtle and yourself are quite fond of telling me what I "seem" to be doing. How about you stop doing that and just go with what I post, m'kay?

I think it's important for you as a human being to understand this.

Communication requires interpretation. If I merely took the literal value of your words, and made no attempt to interpret, then I'd have to conclude that you made no argument and simply ignore you.

Instead, I make the interpretation that you're actually trying to make an argument and try to discern what argument that is.

It's what human beings do every fricking day.

Now I have a few options when my attempt at interpretation leaves me looking at an argument that does not look rational. Most responses would be more or less variations on these handful.

1) I can use my magical mind reading powers to discern what you really meant but left no reasonable clues of. Not too likely as I am not a psychic.

2) I can broadly ask you what the heck you mean, but then I'm very likely to get another bit of language that requires interpretation, so we're back at square one.

3) I can assume my interpretation is correct and respond as though the argument is as flawed as it appears to be.

4) I can present my interpretation in a context using words like "seems" to give you an opportunity to clarify what you mean.

Now I'm sorry if the word "seems" or the fact that casual language requires interpretations has triggered your delicate sensibilities. But some of us are concerned with clarity and truth.

__________________The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.

You don't understand the logic

Axiom
Proposition: A person who cannot have babies is not a woman> This is FALSE

ergo
Proposition: A person who can have babies is not a woman> This is therefore TRUE

Crazy troll logic.

__________________The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.

Now I'm sorry if the word "seems" or the fact that casual language requires interpretations has triggered your delicate sensibilities.

...bears a response: if you think you're being clever by using the word "triggered", which was co-opted by people on the far-left who think you can have PTSD from tweets, and which is used by opponents of the SJWs to point out how delicate they are, as a mirror against said opponents, especially when the context is completely different to anyone with two functioning brain cells, then you're not half as clever as you think you are.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

Ugh. The question is whether a person is of the gender they claim to be by the simple fact of the claim itself. It is _not_ whether it's rude or preferable to go around on the street, pointing to random stragers while shouting their gender and, once one objects that you got it wrong, insist that they're insane and hope they kill themselves to get your gold star.

Funniest post in the thread!

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".

So in your world, women are allowed to define their "gender" any way they want, just as long as that definition doesn't discriminate against confused men who might want to become women? "So why again is the horse behind the cart?"

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And of course if you can't have babies you are not a woman. Simple.

You're like a walking logical fallacy. Good stuff!

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

...Communication requires interpretation. If I merely took the literal value of your words, and made no attempt to interpret, then I'd have to conclude that you made no argument and simply ignore you.

Instead, I make the interpretation that you're actually trying to make an argument and try to discern what argument that is...

I've read that paragraph above 15 times and I'll be damned if I truly understand a ******* thing you're saying. If it's in any way profound then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

...Now I have a few options when my attempt at interpretation leaves me looking at an argument that does not look rational. Most responses would be more or less variations on these handful.

1) I can use my magical mind reading powers to discern what you really meant but left no reasonable clues of. Not too likely as I am not a psychic.

2) I can broadly ask you what the heck you mean, but then I'm very likely to get another bit of language that requires interpretation, so we're back at square one.

3) I can assume my interpretation is correct and respond as though the argument is as flawed as it appears to be.

4) I can present my interpretation in a context using words like "seems" to give you an opportunity to clarify what you mean.

Now I'm sorry if the word "seems" or the fact that casual language requires interpretations has triggered your delicate sensibilities. But some of us are concerned with clarity and truth.

Really? Clarity and truth? "As flawed as it appears to be"? Really? This is the best you got? And all while acting like a complete ********? You're literally making things up and then accusing those things of being flawed/irrational. Pro Tipô: Quit while you're not too far behind.

You have broken my irony meter, and reminded me why I go long stretches without engaging in this forum, I'm done.

__________________The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

Since it has been explained that this is about the locker-room issue and not about calling people by their preferred pronoun, which locker-room would you prefer this person enter? How about this person? This person? How about this person? This person?

Just go back a few posts and read the half dozen times I or someone else has explained exactly what it's about. It's not normal that so many of you seem to not read the thread, but then pretend that you understand the discussion.

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"